Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Pratheep Kumar, J
Limjo – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5626 OF 2023 | CRIME NO.981/2018 | SC NO.321 OF 2019 | CRMP 56/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.M.ANEESH, SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN, SRI.MANOJ SIMON
For the Respondents: SRI.E.ADITHYAN, SHRI.NESAMUDHEEN, SMT.MEERA RAMESH
Irrelevant defence witness testimony on unrelated enmity lacks merit in serious sexual assault trial under IPC and PoCSO Act.
Headnote:The petitioner, accused in a trial under Sections 376(3), 363, 366(A), 294(b), 354
(B), 506 & 509 of IPC and Sections 3(a) r/w 4, 5(m)(c) r/w 6, 11(ii) r/w 12 of the PoCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault on a 10-year-old minor girl, sought to examine the victim's uncle as a defence witness under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Special Judge. The High Court examined the relevance of the proposed testimony regarding alleged visits to the victim's mother and enmity. The court held that such evidence has little relevance to the charge of penetrative sexual assault and dismissed the notion of false implication due to enmity as implausible for such a heinous offence. The key issue was whether the trial court's rejection of the defence witness application was irregular or illegal warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court reasoned that the proposed witness's testimony on unrelated enmity does not impact the prosecution's case on the core offence, finding no merit in the petition. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, upholding the Special Judge's order refusing permission to examine the witness.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges dismissal of defence witness application in pocso trial. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. proposed witness testimony alleges enmity via victim's mother's visitors. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. irrelevant enmity evidence insufficient for serious assault charge interference. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026 The accused in S.C.No.321/2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Thrissur, arising out of Crime No.981/2018 of Ollur police station, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge dismissing his application filed under Section 233(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (3), 363, 366(A), 294(b), 354(B) 506 & 509 of IPC and Sections 3 (a) r/w 4, 5(m)(c) r/w 6, 11(ii) r/w 12 of the PoCSO Act . The allegation against him is that he had committed penetrative sexual assault upon a minor girl of 10 years.
3. The petitioner wanted to examine the uncle of the victim as a defence witness. Since the above prayer was declined as per Annexure 4 order, he approached this court praying for setting aside Annexure 4 and to permit him to examine the uncle of the victim.
4. Admittedly, the uncle of the victim is working abroad. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the night some persons used to visit PW2, the mother of the victim, that the said fact was reported by the petitioner to her brother who is working abroad, that on receiving that information he came down to India and talked about the incident with PW2 and thereafter he returned. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was falsely implicated in this crime due to the above enmity.
5. The question involved in this case is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the petitioner that he committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor girl of 10 years. The question whether some persons visited PW2 during night or that the same was reported by the petitioner to her brother or that her brother returned to India and talked about the incident with PW2 has little relevance in the subject matter involved in this case. There is absolutely no reason to believe that for such a reason the petitioner will be falsely implicated in a very serious and heinous offence like the present one. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in Annexure 4 order passed by the learned Special Judge so as to call for any interference.
